Jewish Ritual Murder

The Bloody Truth about Jewish Ritual Murder

A Review of the Ritual Murder of St. Andrei Youschinsky by Menachem Mendel Beilis, and Other Grisly Crimes

“A post-mortem examination revealed upon his body 47 wounds, all having evidently been inflicted with an awl or chisel-like instrument and with every indication of system, in order to draw the greatest amount of blood,” noted the report by the US Consulate John Grant, describing the findings of doctors during the trial of [Menachem] Mendel Beilis. Beilis had been arrested for murdering the child Andrei Youschinsky. Continuing, Grant wrote, “The wounds were mostly grouped around the head and neck … while two entering the heart had evidently been given to quickly cause death.”[1]

A picture of Andrei’s head taken after the grisly crime, with the blood washed away by police

It was the crime of the century—a crime so great that it sent shock waves not only across Russia, where it occurred, but the world itself. It began on March 25, 1911, when the young Gentile Andrei went missing in Kiev, which was a part of the Russian empire at the time. Several days later, Andrei’s parents’ worst fears were realized: His bloodied corpse was discovered in a dark cave.

The Cave where Youshchinsky’s Corpse Was Discovered

Police investigators examined the corpse at the scene and noticed some strange facts: Despite the child being found dead in the cave, there was little blood there, certainly not explaining the child’s near total blood loss. The child’s shirt appeared to have been pulled up while being stabbed, with the blood pouring out somewhere else, helping to explain why there hadn’t been more blood on the shirt than there was. The wounds were in a bizarre pattern, not just in one area, but focused in three primary areas: The forehead, the back, and around the heart, with a few wounds scattered around the neck and some even under the armpit.

Youshchinsky’s Bloodied Shirt

Other disturbing facts began to appear. Despite no cloths around Andrei, the coroner noticed that Andrei’s mouth had been wrapped with cloth so tight that his teeth left imprints on the inside of his lips. Also, it appeared that his limbs had been securely tied down too, with imprints of ropes left on his arms and legs. Some of the wounds on Andrei’s forehead appeared to have a methodical placement, as if the awl was held in place right on the temple in certain places then extreme force was applied to puncture his skull, explaining why some puncture marks seemed more pronounced and deeper than others.

The General Placement of Youschinsky’s Wounds (as shown in Monniot’s book)

Investigators looking further into this matter noticed that the boy had been dragged to the cave. Looking at the bent and broken brush around the area, while finding occasional drops of blood on the ground and on a nearby recently broken fence, the police discovered that the boy had dragged from a nearby brick factory, which was owned by a Jew, managed by a Jewish man (Beilis), and employed only Jewish workers.

The Jewish Zaitsev Factory

Police quickly interviewed the boy’s playmates. It was discovered that Andrei had been playing with (Zhenya) Eugene Cheberiak, his sisters Valentina and Ludmilla, and another child, Kaliujny. The children told police that they had been playing with Andrei near the Jewish factory when some Jews came running after them. They said that one Jew, who had a beard and black hat, caught Andrei and took him away, while Eugene and Kaliujny ran off, frightened by the ordeal.

The Cheberiaks’ Home

More strange and disturbing facts became evident to investigators as they continued their search for the truth: Inside the factory, there was a secret synagogue. Investigators were planning to look at one area of the facility; and, the day before they planned to examine the area, it mysteriously caught fire and burnt down. After interviewing local townspeople, it was discovered that many ultra-orthodox Jews of the Lubavitcher sect—the kind who all have beards, wear black hats, and have long, curly sideburns—had recently congregated at the factory for unknown reasons. Beilis was arrested, believed to have been involved in the crime. Eyewitnesses Eugene, Valentina, Ludmilla, and Kaliujny identified Beilis as Andrei’s abductor, with Eugene having stayed longer in hiding than the others.

Jews of the world suddenly united to free Beilis. The newspapers owned by Jews all clamored how he must be innocent, and that the case was nothing but mere anti-Semitism. They said because he was Jewish, he could not have committed a crime. A defense team that would have made OJ Simpson envious was created, with the finest Jewish attorneys in Russia hired. It has been estimated that in today’s dollars, the equivalent of at least $115 million was raised for Beilis’s defense.

A Picture of Menachem Mendel Beilis, Center, Surrounded by Five of His Lawyers

The Procurator of the Supreme Appellate Court of Kiev, the rough equivalent of the prosecuting attorney, Chaplinsky, noted that the case was being solved:

“[W]e cannot avoid coming to the conclusion that Mendel Beilis took part in the commission of the murder. . . . Under such circumstances, all the references to Mendel Beilis contained in the testimonies . . . of witnesses, including the less substantial, acquire the significance of serious evidence against him.”[2]

The facts certainly posed a problem to the Jewish defense team that was organized. It seemed like there was strong evidence against him. It seemed certain that Beilis was involved in the murder, and he was one of a gang of fanatical Jewish cutthroats who were going to be found guilty of slaughtering young Andrei Youshchinsky. The case was becoming well known throughout the world. People from all over were looking at this monstrous crime perpetrated by Jews. It was terrible publicity for Jews; for non-Jews from all lands would soon realize that a small band of fanatical Hasidic Jews were, once again, being accused of murdering non-Jews for sacrificial blood rites. Certainly, the Jewish defense team needed to take decisive action to hide some nefarious activities. With the fanatical crime in the press, various authors began to write about how similar crimes, committed by Jews, had occurred in the past.

Indeed, Jewish ritual murder was not something new, which had just been discovered, but is something that has been occurring since written history. There are many celebrated cases, such as Simon of Trent, who was made a Saint by the Catholic Church and whose case has been written about in detail in several issues of La Civilta Cattolica. In fact, there are about a dozen children who were made saints by the church. Additionally, there have been countless other children across the world in every land where Jews exist who were found to have been victims of these barbaric Jewish ritualistic rites, and whose crimes have been recorded by various authors over the course of the past 2,000 years.

An old picture of St. Simon of Trent, demonstrating how he was similarly bound and poked with awls. Note the hammer, which was probably used for detailed piercings.

The Relation of Jews to Blood by V.V. Rozanov

Russian poet V.V. Rozanov wrote about the case in his book, “The Relation of Jews to Blood,” and described the Jewish occult-meanings of the puncture marks that Andrei received. Rozanov argued that the Hebrew letter Schin, which looks similar to the English letter “W” and produces the “sch”-sound, was essentially put on Andrei’s head. The reported significance of this letter is that it differentiates the words “Jesus” (Jehoschuah) and “God” (Jehovah) in Hebrew—that is to say, if the letter schin is removed from the word “Jesus” in Hebrew, it then spells “God.”

Here is the Hebrew symbol “schin” by itself – the difference between the two words

Here is the magnification of some of the markings on Andrei’s head, seemingly created with precision by the awl-like device that was used, helping to explain their larger-size:

If you connect the lines in a logical manner, it illustrates how the Jews reportedly symbolized the letter “schin” on Andrei’s head:

Indeed, Rozanov’s book described the entire meaning of the puncture marks on young Andrei, describing the Jewish mystical rites that were involved.

An illustration from Rozanov’s book, used to explain the Jewish mysticism involved in their ritualistic murder rites, reportedly obtained from rare Jewish books dealing with these matters

Many Jews were concerned about this darker side of their history, with all the mysticism and rituals along with it, being discovered by the general public. Certainly, some Jews, particularly the Jews who had donated millions of dollars for Beilis’s defense, wanted the trial – and all information associated with it – to just disappear. Beilis’s lawyers needed to develop a plan, lest these crimes throughout the ages be exposed to the general public.

It appears that an idea was hatched. It was a dastardly idea, but what seems to be the atypical three-part ploy that usually accompanies a Jewish Ritual Murder that is uncovered: Get rid of the evidence against the Jews; accuse a non-Jew; and, of course, use the media to convince the public.

Lord Rothschild himself even got into the fray. He sent off a letter to Cardinal Merry Del Val of the Roman Catholic church, beginning it with cries of innocence: “Probably Your Excellency is not unaware that in the city of Kiev in the Russian Empire, some ill disposed people have recently renewed the atrocious ritual murder libel against Israelites.” He asked for the Cardinal to verify the authenticity of a letter by Fr. Ganganelli, who later became Pope Clement XIV. While the Cardinal did verify the authenticity of the letter, he in no way attributed the meaning to the letter that Rothschild conveyed. (The letter simply said that Jews should not be punished for ritually murdering Christians without first having been tried for such accusations in court.)[3]

An early picture of the Rothschild banking cartel/family

Due to the discord raised mostly by the Jewish press in England and in America, the Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs said, “With regret, we must take cognizance of a new encroachment upon our internal affairs on part of the English people, instigated by the Jews.”[4] Indeed, Y. Bakhmeteff, the Russian Ambassador stationed in the United States, commented on the situation:

“The Jewish press in the United States is watching the Beilis case with concentrated attention and, naturally, completely distorts all the news which comes from Russian sources. Though not regarding this fact as very serious, I would nevertheless consider to throw light on the court proceeding from our point of view, in the American press.”[5]

Strange things began to occur to the case. People started dying. Professor Obolonsky, who was scheduled to testify at the trial, suddenly died. Had Obolonsky been the only one to die, perhaps things would not have looked so unusual. However, more evidence and people started to disappear. The incredible events that took place between the murder of Youshchinsky in 1911 and the trial in 1913 seems so incredible that all people of the world should scream in harmony about the reported miscarriage of justice that was perpetrated.

The Jewish defense decided to blame Vera Cheberiak for young Andrei Youshchinsky’s death. Some Jews even offered her the equivalent of several million dollars today if she would say she was guilty, and provide her free defense, which she obviously refused. The Jews probably chose her because Vera’s son was the last one playing with Andrei. The Jews could not develop a greater ploy. Vera Cheberiak was a mere housewife. Her husband was a postal clerk. Neither had criminal records. This was a problem. But as with all problems, there are solutions. Her brother had been in trouble with the law for theft. Sometimes, he would visit her and bring a friend with him. It was to be guilt by association. The Jews said that she was a vicious “leader of thieves.”[6] Innocent Vera Cheberiak, housewife without a criminal record, was now portrayed as an iniquitous mastermind behind a den of thieves, who purportedly regularly attended her flat.

The proceedings against Beilis were started. Eugene Cheberiak was scheduled to testify against Beilis. He had been with his good friend Andrei Youshchinsky on the fateful day that Andrei was abducted and later murdered in cold blood. Eugene’s sisters, Valentina and Ludmilla, were also there when Andrei was abducted and were to testify. Another witness, Kazimir Shakhovsky, who was a lamplighter and who had been told by the children what had occurred, also offered to testify to recent events he had seen. The truth was going to come out. The Jews knew this. They also knew something had to be done about this problem.

Ivan Kozachenko, a secret agent for the investigators, had been strategically placed inside the cell of Mendel Beilis, with the operation being so clandestine that not even the jailers or police knew of this initially. Apparently, while in jail with Beilis, Beilis told Secret Agent Kozachenko to poison “some lamp lighter” (Shakhovsky) and another witness, nicknamed “The Frog” (probably referring to the small size of the child Eugene and his slippery nature in which the child managed escape, as he too had been grabbed but broke free). In an attempt to extract more information, Kozachenko said, “I told Beilis that I would agree to do it.” Kozachenko continued:

“Mendel Beilis said it was impossible to bribe ‘The Frog’ and ‘the lantern-lighter,’ so I was to settle them with the aid of strychnine. . . . Mendel told me that there was a hospital on the estate of Zaitzeff’s factory, where someone would get some strychnine to give it to me. Beilis said that I would be given three or four hundred rubles for my expenses in executing this commission; and that if I succeeded in my mission, I would be given so much money that it would suffice for the rest of my life. This money would be given by the entire Jewish nation.”[7]

Beilis in prison, surrounded by guards

Secret Agent Kozachenko, proceeding with his ruse of merely being a criminal in jail, reported Beilis’s comments to the local police (also showing a note that Beilis wrote his wife, saying that she should give Kozachenko whatever money he needs to execute the plan), and had an interview with Lieut.-Col. Ivanoff. Unknown to Kozachenko, Ivanoff was an investigator who was attempting to discredit any evidence that proved Beilis’s guilt. Ivanoff did this for financial gain, for it was later discovered that he was being paid by the newspaper Kievlianin for his disinformation.[8]

On August 11, 1911, just a mere five days after the proceedings began against Beilis, Secret Agent Kozachenko’s findings proved to be true: Eugene Cheberiak died. But not only did Eugene die; his little sister, Valentina, died as well, who was to testify about Beilis as well. [9] Many Russian newspapers, undaunted over the deaths of the children, spoke what they felt was the truth about the incident. One newspaper reported:

“Eugene Cheberiak, the playmate of Andrei Youshchinsky, was poisoned and died in Kiev. . . . The elimination of important witnesses is the usual means employed by this bloodthirsty race [of Jews]. . . . Now there is a new victim in Kiev. The daughter of Cheberiak was poisoned. It is evident that the Jews decided to kill all those who might say a single word about the kidnapping of Andrei Youshchinsky by Beilis. . . Another most important witness has disappeared who could have given testimony in the case of Youshchinsky harmful to the interests of the Jews.”[10]

“[T]wo of the children who were eye-witnesses, Eugene and Valentina, Cheberiak’s children, had died a few days after Beilis’s imprisonment. There was a murmuring about poisoning, but the Jewish press resolutely denied: The children had been brought to the hospital where Dr. Cantor, a Jew, and Dr. Wissokowitch, a Jew, had verified it was just a matter of dysentery, as bacilli of it were found. But a little bit later – that is to say, after Cheberiak had refused to take upon herself the responsibility of the murder, and after she had made the deposition before the examining magistrate about the attempt at bribing subordination with an offering of 40,000 rubles – the newspapers themselves changed their opinion; and, with their usual impudence, they maintained that the bacteriological test had never been made, and that it could perfectly well be that the children had been poisoned … by their mother!”[11]

Indeed, Krasovsky, the Supervisor of the Kiev Police who reportedly had close relations with the synagogue, accused Vera Cheberiak—the innocent mother who had undergone the mental anguish of seeing her own children dying after agreeing to testify—of poisoning her own children.

Krasovsky, who was paid handsomely by Jews for his disinformation attempts

Vera could not fathom how she could be blamed for killing not only young Andrei Youshchinsky but her two children as well. When the Czar came to town, she sent him her “most humble” petition. She noted her “irreproachable life of toil.” She said, “I want to express before the throne the grief of a mother . . . when she . . . loses two of her children. . . .” She humbly requested that the Czar consider “the sufferings of the mother” and asked that he find the killers of her children.[12] Zamyslovsky, a leader of the Imperial Duma, honestly stated during trial that there was not “the slightest evidence against Cheberiak as the person who poisoned her children.”[13] Similarly, during court, the State Procurator Vipper, promulgated:

“We have heard here Mr. Krasovsky himself spread insinuations that Vera Cheberiak poisoned her own children—she, who was so grieved when her son and daughter died and who undoubtedly loved her children very much. . . . The attempt has been made to throw the entire guilt upon Cheberiak. . . .”[14]

Prosecutor O. Vipper

Polistshuk, who was a witness to Beilis’s guilt and who been an agent of the Secret Police, declared that Krasovsky was actually responsible for the children’s deaths by poisoning them, which was noted at the trial.[15] In fact, both Cheberiak’s family and Polistshuk had witnessed and testified that young Eugene and Valentina Cheberiak ate a piece of cake given to them by Krasovsky before they died.[16] Indeed, why would he come to Cheberiak’s flat with cake-in-hand? Not too surprisingly, since Krasovsky was the supervisor of the Kiev Police, his Police Department issued a response that favored him to Petersburg. Also not surprisingly, Lieut.-Col. Ivanoff, who was on the Jewish payroll, was involved in the writing of this letter.

Indeed, Ivanoff was getting paid-off with much money from the Jewish-owned newspaper Kievlianin for supplying quasi-facts, which promoted the belief that Cheberiak was a ruthless murderer and the notorious leader of a den of thieves in its articles. As a result of his lies, Ivanoff was then involved in a trial where the Kievlianin was sued for libel, based on Ivanoff’s disinformation, and found guilty as charged.[17] It was also shown that Ivanoff “lied” at the trial by deliberately making up false testimony of Kozachenko to make Kozachenko’s testimony appear circumspect. Accordingly, Ivanoff was “charged” with “dishonesty in the open court room.”[18]

Apparently, Shakhovsky, the lamp lighter who had witnessed young Andrei near Beilis shortly before Andrei’s murder, and his fears of being “stabbed” or murdered by other means were not mere paranoia. He obviously heard of the children being killed, and must have known that he had little chance if the band of cutthroats would murder even children witnesses. Then again, what would one expect from a group of people who stabs a child 47 times with an awl and drains his blood? That must have scared Shakhovsky a bit. He changed his statement. Now, he stated that he did not actually see Beilis abduct the Youshchinsky child; he stated that Eugene Cheberiak, who had since died, told him that he saw a man, who was wearing Jewish attire and who resembled Beilis, grab Andrei, and the Jew dragged Andrei towards the brick factory. His wife also dropped her testimony, probably out of the fear of being just another murder statistic in this case. She said that she was under the influence of alcohol when she made her statements.[19]

The slanderous campaign against Cheberiak continued. Cheberiak was referred to by a Jewish writer as a “keeper of the den of murderers.”[20] Since the Jewish defense team was unsuccessful in framing her for the death of her own children and Andrei, they tried to blame her children’s murder on her brother, Peter Singayevsky, and his friends. The Jewish defense team figured that this would be easier, since Singayevsky and his friends had been arrested before for theft, while Vera’s record was clean. Inventing names to make these common thieves sound more sinister, the Jewish investigator Fenenko, working in conjunction with Ivanoff, referred to two of Vera Cheberiak’s brother’s friends as “Vanka the Red Haired” (Ivan Latysheff) and “Kolka the Sailor” (Nicholas Mandzelevsky).[21]

Latysheff supposedly committed suicide while Fenenko was questioning him. It is said that Latysheff just got up and bolted for the fourth story window and decided to jump out.[22] However, this story about Latysheff committing suicide just does not make any sense. Why would he kill himself at that point? Now, the Jewish defense team could bash Latysheff as much as they wanted, suggesting that he somehow was responsible for the macabre incident surrounding the innocent child Youshchinsky; and Latysheff could not defend his honor (nor retaliate with libel and slander suits).[23] They had found their scapegoat.

Two of the star witnesses mysteriously vanished off the face of the Russian map at the time of the trial. Secret Agent Kozachenko and the criminal Kulinich, both of whom had told investigators of Beilis’s confessions while in jail with him, just disappeared into thin air. The prosecutor “was not able” to find either of them. Prosecutor Vipper remarked that Kulinich was needed to “confirm the fact that the accused [Beilis], being confined in the prison together with the witness, confessed to him that he had participated in Youshchinsky’s murder.”[24] It is not known if they ever turned up; if they did turn up, it may have been in a grave, perhaps suffering the same fate as so many others who planned to testify against Beilis. Or, maybe, they decided to take some money and live the leisure life. In any case, their testimony, which was needed, was nowhere to be found.

Despite all the mysterious deaths and disappearances surrounding Vera Cheberiak—the deaths of her two children, Eugene and Valentina; the murder of her child’s friend, Andrei Youshchinsky; the supposed suicide of her brother’s friend, Latysheff; the untimely death of an investigating professor, Professor Obolonsky; the disappearance of two witnesses who had heard Beilis confess his guilt, Secret Agent Kozachenko and the criminal Kulinich, who were planning to testify—the good Vera Cheberiak, undaunted by the tragic events surrounding this murder, continued forward and testified at the trial. She told the defense that her son Eugene had personally seen Beilis grab the innocent child Youshchinsky and took him away, and that Eugene had told her this.[25] Such bravery in the face of adversity must be admired. This is, perhaps, why Prosecutor Chaplinsky referred to her as “an innocent Orthodox Christian woman.”[26] Her daughter Ludmilla also testified, undeterred by her brother and sister’s deaths.

Ludmilla Cheberiak testified:

“The manager of the [brick] factory, Mendel [Beilis], began chasing us, just as some other Jews there pursued us. We started to run away…. We started to get away. However, he [Beilis] caught Eugene and Andrei, but Eugene struggled and escaped, while Andrei could not escape. The Jews then dragged Andrei away. My sister [Valentina] did not know about a hole [in the fence] where she could escape, so she hid where they could not see her and watched. I ran to the house where we lived, but then noticed my sister was not there. I ran back for my sister and took her hand and led her home. She cried on the way home and said: ‘Andrei was dragged somewhere. But I do not know—I have not seen [where he was dragged] …'”[27]

The Jewish defense team sought to use every bit of subterfuge it could create. They used every means at their disposal to make it appear as if the whole purpose of the trial was to frame an innocent Jew when nothing could be further from the truth. Even from the very beginning, and knowing how things would progress, Prosecutor Vipper honestly stated how Jews would react to Beilis being indicted:

“From the first moment when Beilis was indicted, Jewish circles became excited. They did not expect that the government . . . would dare to accuse the Jews. I repeat: They did not expect this. . . .

“The Jews are so sure of having in their hands the main lever of social life, the press, that they think nobody would dare to raise such an accusation against them, not only in Russia but also in other nations. . . . They control our world . . . and we feel ourselves under their yoke. . . . I personally consider myself under the power of the Jews; under the power of Jewish thought; under the power of the Jewish press. . . . The Russian press only seems to be Russian. . . .

“To speak against Jews means to evoke a charge that you are either a Black Hundred, an obscurantist, or a reactionary, or that you do not believe in progress, and so on. Nobody thought that the government would ever try this case. Everyone wondered whether the government would not be taking a risk. . . . We will be accused even of having staged the trial, of wishing to incite the people against the Jews. . . .

There was, therefore, great astonishment on the part of the Jews when Beilis was indicted: How could the government dare to do such a thing when there is an Imperial Duma, in which various discussions will be started and a number of government officials may be held responsible for this? The government, however, dared. And Beilis was indicted.”[28]

When Rev. Dr. Justin Pranaitis testified, the Jewish defense made up all kinds of lies to discredit him. He testified to ritual murders having occurred in the past, and explained the hatred contained towards Gentiles in the Jewish oral laws, known as the Talmud. In order to hide the facts, they made it appear as if all the Popes condemned Jewish ritual murder accusations, while nothing could be further from the truth, particularly considering all the child-saints such as St. Simon of Trent, who had died a similar death.[29] The Jewish defense team tried to ridicule him with a play on words to make it appear as if he was unfamiliar with the Talmud, asking him, “Kto Baba Kama?” (“Who is Grandmother Kama?”) The defense lawyers were referring to one of the books of the Talmud, named Baba Kama, but presented the question in such a manner (rather than asking him, “What is Baba Kama?”) as to obviously confuse him, as “Baba” is “grandmother” in Russian and is also part of the word used for the chapter of the Talmud (though not bearing a similar meaning), with all the Jews laughing about his initial response to their trick-question in an effort to ridicule his expertise.

John Grant, the U.S. Consulate stationed in Odessa, Russia, who was quoted at the beginning of this article concerning the nature of Andrei’s wounds, summed up what had occurred:

“It is a matter of record that those witnesses who had stated that they saw Beilis catch the boy have since died. The evidence was not complete, consisting, in part, as follows: That there were secret proceedings carried on at the brick factory; that well-known fanatical leaders of Jews from places in Russia and abroad had secretly resided there about the time of the murder; that in a very short time all those who died who had professed knowledge of the case likely to be injurious to the cause of the Jewish side, two children who were supposed to have been with the boy when he was caught by his murderers; that before the examining magistrate sent out from St. Petersburg could possibly inspect the dwelling of Beilis it was consumed by fire, the cause still remaining a mystery; that from the very beginning of the investigation, Jews and their close friends endeavored to direct the search to some false trail; that the whole and numerous Jewish press had heaped ridicule and ignominy upon all who did not readily accept the theory of innocence of Beilis and of his fanatical friends, both known and undiscovered; [and] that the Jewish press attacked with the greatest acumen all persons who conducted the case against Beilis and endeavored to gain credence for Detectives Mishchuk and Krasovsky.

“On October 28/10 November, after the trial had lasted a month, the jury gave its verdict ‘that a certain boy found cruelly murdered in Kiev had been killed by fanatical Jews and that Jews, for occult purposes, had carefully drawn all blood from the dying child; that it was an instance of Jewish ritualistic murder; that Beilis was not guilty.'”[30]

Indeed, Beilis was found innocent. While 6 of the jurors found him guilty, 6 also believed that he was innocent, with a simple majority being necessary for a conviction. Or, perhaps, some of the jurors were offered—and took—bribes, given the bribe that was offered to Cheberiak and all the other crimes that were committed to free Beilis. In any case, while the jurors felt that the case was indeed a Jewish ritual murder, there remained some division as to proving that Beilis himself was the actual culprit who murdered the child, even if he was somehow involved in the process.

No article can ever do the trial justice. And, unfortunately, all the books in English about the trial are written by Jews, who appear quite ingenious with the way that they presented (or omitted) many of the key facts. When you take them together, however, one of the greatest tragedies in the 20th century occurred, with some fanatical Jews getting away with murder.

Zamyslovsky, the prosecuting attorney in the case and member of the Russian Duma, wrote a massive 520-page book about the ordeal, published prior to the Russian Revolution in 1917. It was titled Ubistvo Andrushee Youschinskago (The Murder of Andrei Youshchinsky). In it, he reportedly tries to change “the public opinion of the world” to show it that the Czarist government was not as bad as some Jews portrayed it to be. Zamyslovsky promulgated:

“The fanatical murder committed by the Jews in order to obtain Christian blood is not a legend even in the twentieth century. It is not blood libel; it is a terrible reality. Many who doubted and hesitated about it became convinced after the Kiev trial. However, the historical and social significance of the Beilis affair is far from having been exhausted by these discoveries of the bloody rite and dogma that were repeatedly described aloud in public, in the name of the state prosecutor, at the trial in Kiev. . . . The Beilis case is a vivid and indelible page from that book of the world’s history, which contends that Jewry immediately opens war against the Christian state system everywhere as soon as it has succeeded in strengthening itself, and it does not shrink from using any means at its disposal.[31]

Just about everyone associated with the trial who testified for the prosecution – who didn’t die during the trial – was murdered after the Russia revolution. Dr. Arnold Leese, writing in his book about Jewish Ritual Murder, notes what occurred:

“After the Jewish Bolshevik revolution, the Jew-controlled Cheka shot the Judge [Boldirev], the Public Prosecutor and many of the witnesses, including Father Pranaitis, the medical expert Kozoratov, and Professor Sikorski.

“Professor Pawlow, a Jew, who was a witness for the defense, became a leading scientist in Bolshevik Russia!

“The ex-General Alexandre Netchvoldov of the Russian Imperial Army, tells us the rest in an article, “La Russie et les Juifs” in Le Front Unique, published at Oran, 1927, p. 59: Quoting Evrijskaja Tribuna of 24th August, 1922, he says ‘that at a visit of the Rabbi of Moscow to Lenin [Ulyanov], the first word Lenin said to his visitor was to ask him if the Jews were satisfied with the Soviet tribunal which had annulled the Beilis verdict, saying that Youschinksy had been killed by a Christian!'”

In the online English-Hebrew translation of Menachem Mendel Beilis’s book “The Story of My Sufferings,” it also gives a picture of the aftermath, noted by the translator in the chapter Editor’s Postnotes:

“After the Revolution of 1917, the Provisional Russian Government immediately set about the task of prosecuting former Czarist ministers for crimes against the Russian people. The Beilis case was the first case submitted for investigation. In the summer of 1919, although the archives of the Czar had not yet been researched and the commission was only allowed to investigate illegal acts done in an official capacity, the Moscow Revolutionary Tribunal convicted Minister of Justice Shtchedlovitoff, Ministers of the Interior Makaroff and Maklakoff and Director of Police Bielezky. They were all executed. Zamislovsky and Shmakoff died in the interim. Prosecutor Viper had died awaiting trial following his indictment in 1919. Vera Cheberiak was shot in Kiev in 1918.”

As noted above, the bogus re-trial of the Beilis case was the first case after the Russian revolution. It should also be pointed out that the revolution occurred immediately after Zamyslovsky’s book was published. It is quite possible that if Zamyslovsky’s book been published and allowed to run its course, perhaps Russia would have had a fighting chance to recognize the hatred with which the Russian people would face. (It has been estimated that between 40-60 million Russians were either slaughtered or starved after the Bolshevik revolution.) All known copies of Zamyslovsky’s 520-page book were destroyed except for one, and the remaining copy was marked “Classified” until the 1990s. Even then, only scholars were allowed to view it. I had paid a doctor there to copy and digitize it, and have since put it online in its original (Russian) format.

V.V. Rozanov, who is still a respected poet in Russia, was also killed. His book, “The Relation of Jews to Blood,” had nearly all copies having been rounded up and destroyed. (My copy is actually a reprint, published in 1934 Stockholm.)

In the work of Vladimir Lenin (aka Ulyanov), “Critical Marks of the National Question,” V. 20, p. 19, published in 1913, he writes about this case in a footnote:

“The Beilis case — a provocative trial engineered by the tsarist government in 1913 in Kiev. Beilis, a Jew, was falsely accused of having murdered a Christian boy named Yushchinsky for ritual purposes (actually, the murder was organized by the Black Hundreds). The aim of this frame-up was to fan anti-Semitism and incite pogroms so as to divert the masses from the mounting revolutionary movement. The trial excited great public feeling. Workers’ protest demonstrations were held in a number of cities. Beilis was acquitted.”

The Russian Holy Synod began collecting donations for a monument to be dedicated to the young Andrei Youshchinsky, who was “cruelly killed by the Jews.”[32]

Today, the child has finally become a saint, recognized by some members of the Russian Orthodox Church, and there has recently been a new 800-page book published about the case in Kiev, Ukraine, which tells the truth about the case.

And, of course, there is the Jewish Ritual Murder video sold here, which has a separate short section dealing with the case.

* * * * *

[1] Letter from John H. Grant, U.S. Consulate stationed in Odessa, Russia, to the U.S. Secretary of State, “Ritualistic Murder at Kiev” (Nov. 13, 1913), 840.1

[5] Tager, The Decay of Czarism, p. 160. Bakhmeteff later sent a message to Minister of Foreign Affairs in which he honestly said that American Jews “have not failed to take advantage of an opportunity and have used the Kiev case to foment a new agitation against Russia. . . .” This was done to elicit “sympathy” for the “oppressed Jews.” He went on to describe that Jewish Congressman Adolph Sabath of Chicago sought to condemn Russia for the Jews. Bakhmeteff then went on to describe “the falsity of the newspaper articles maliciously stating that we accuse the whole of Jewry of the commission of ritual murders.” He noticed that “public opinion” was being “misled” by “false information derived from evil-minded agitators.” Ibid., pp. 160-161.

[6] Tager, The Decay of Czarism, p. 89. Since Cheberiak had no criminal records, this problem also was remedied. While she was not a thief, her brother, Peter Singayevsky, was. He had given her some of his of his stolen goods. She sold these items, because she did not need them, and was promptly arrested. She was also convicted of forgery during the time between Youshchinsky’s murder and the trial. Ibid., p. 121.

[13] Tager, The Decay of Czarism, p. 91. Cheberiak eventually took the people who were bad-mouthing her to court for libel. She sought libel charges against Tarnavsky, the newspaper Kievskaia Mysl’s editor; the journalist Brazul-Brushkovsky; and Trifinoff, the assistant editor of the newspaper Kievlianin. Ibid., p. 142.

[14] Tager, The Decay of Czarism, pp. 90-91.

[15] Tager, The Decay of Czarism, p. 90.

[16] Tager, The Decay of Czarism, p. 92.

[17] Tager, The Decay of Czarism, pp. 106-107.

[18] Tager, The Decay of Czarism, p. 109. Eventually, when the facts became known of how Krasovsky was hindering the investigation (although it was never proven that the children died as a result of the cake that Krasovsky had given them), Krasovsky was removed from police in 1912. He quickly obtained a job for the Jewish journalist Brazul-Brushkovsky. This is the same gentleman who was also paying Ivanoff for information to discredit the investigation and make Beiliss appear innocent. Krasovsky continued to investigate the matter, which was now being paid for by the newspaper. Ibid., p. 133. Director of the Police Department, Bielezky, received a telegram that gave evidence that Ivanoff had an assistant, Sergei Makhalin, who worked for the journalist Brazul-Brushkovsky and was involved in the libel for which Ivanoff was convicted. It appears that Makhalin gave more false information at the trial. Ibid., pp. 195-197.

[19] Tager, The Decay of Czarism, pp. 80-81.

[20] Tager, The Decay of Czarism, p. 181.

[21] Tager, The Decay of Czarism, p. 114-115.

[22] Tager, The Decay of Czarism, p. 118.

[23] In fact, it was demonstrated that while Rudzinsky and Singayevsky, common thieves and friends of Latysheff (and the latter, Singayevsky, being Vera Cheberiak’s brother), were engaged in a burglary with Latysheff, they all thought the murder of Youshchinsky took place, because they had heard an erroneous date of when Youshchinsky was murdered at the funeral. Both Singayevsky and Rudzinsky responded to investigators that this proved their innocence and that of their friends because of their criminal activity, giving the same wrong date. Had they actually somehow been involved in the crime, they would have known the date on which it occurred and used that specific date as their alibi to demonstrate innocence. Tager, The Decay of Czarism, p. 116-117. Hence, their mistake shows their innocence in this matter and raises more suspicions of Latysheff’s alleged suicide, which seems more like the possibility of another murder perpetrated against a person whose innocence would have made it more evident that the head of the guilty party was, in fact, Beiliss. Indeed, Prosecutor Vipper noted that Rudzinsky, Singayevsky, and Latysheff were not guilty. “The government does not desire to conceal anything, and it would indict them if they were guilty.” Ibid., p. 185. Fenenko, an investigator who was shown to be pursuing false leads, was replaced from the case, Ibid. pp. 130, 146. Probably due to the lack of details he kept in relation to Cheberiak’s testimony, it caused some confusion on the part of investigator Shmakoff later. Ibid., p. 183. Speaking out on the behalf of Singayevsky, Rudzinsky, and Latysheff, Prosecutor Vipper queried the jury: “Does a thief, a criminal, a rascal, subject children to such barbarities? They may commit a murder, a wretched murder. . . . But they never apply such refined, bestial tortures. So, gentlemen of the jury, notwithstanding all the gossip about them, you must remember, you must bear in mind . . . that Singayevsky, Rudzinsky, and Latysheff are not guilty, that the blood of Andrei is not on their hands, and that this blood is on other hands.” Ibid., p. 185.

[29] Tager, The Decay of Czarism, p. 209. In fact, Lord Rothschild, an incredibly wealthy English Jew who came to Beiliss’s aid, “requested confirmation of the fact that the Roman Pontiffs always denied the existence of ritual murders.” In response to this, the Cardinal commented on the ritual murder charge, saying that “the press obviously put a strained interpretation upon the documents in question.” He continued, “It is one thing to forbid a ritual murder charge against the Jews without sufficient evidence; it is another thing to deny that Christians had at any time been killed or even tortured by Jews. This the Church cannot easily deny.” Ibid., pp. 267-268. This corroborates Rev. Dr. Pranaitis’s findings that such a document never existed.

[30] Letter from John H. Grant, U.S. Consulate stationed in Odessa, Russia, to the U.S. Secretary of State, “Ritualistic Murder at Kiev” (Nov. 13, 1913), 840.1. Note, the two dates provided are due to the differences of the Julian and Gregorian calendars, as the latter was used in Russia at the time.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Under the 'fair use' rule of copyright law, an author may make limited use of another author's work without asking permission. Fair use is based on the belief that the public is entitled to freely use portions of copyrighted materials for purposes of commentary and criticism. The fair use privilege is perhaps the most significant limitation on a copyright owner's exclusive rights.

Fair use as described at 17 U.S.C. Section 107:

"Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phono-records or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for or nonprofit educational purposes,

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work,

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole, and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."